Mars Peril: A Science Fiction Story

When the first manned mission to Mars set forth in the year 2030, space enthusiasts around the world had high hopes. The spaceship had been built using the most advanced rocket technology ever developed, and its three-person crew had been selected from more than 5000 applicants. There was ace pilot Todd Jefferson, who used to be known as the quickest mind in the US Air Force. There was also Matt Wilson, the brilliant planetary scientist whose books had sold a million copies. There was also Marina Bell, who supposedly was so good at astronomical navigation she could determine her position from looking at only 6 or 7 stars in the sky.

The interplanetary vehicle Fearless included a landing craft that could reach the surface. The plan was for Jefferson and Wilson to land the craft on the surface, and explore the surface for 60 days, while Bell remained in the main rocket vehicle. The craft would then lift off from the surface, and dock with the main rocket vehicle.

On the 200-day trip from Earth to Mars, there was plenty of time to think about the adventures to come. The first week the crew talked about their plans during dinner.

“It's going to be tough making the landing,” said Todd. “I figure I'll have to be juggling seven different things at once in my head when our landing craft approaches the surface: the descent velocity, the trajectory angle, the parachute status, the flow status of the mini-thrusters, the cross-thrust of the intersecting atmospheric winds, the target touchdown coordinates, and the surface temperature of the heat shields. But I should be able to handle that.”

“The real fun will start once we've landed,” said Matt. “I can't wait to begin doing micro-analysis of the molecular patterns of organic compounds, to look for hypothetical residual microfossils of primordial organisms.”

The mission was a bargain-basement Mars expedition. When the mission had been proposed, critics howled about the proposed 200 billion-dollar price tag. In response, the government had shaved 80 billion dollars off the total mission costs. One of the things that had been cut from the original mission plan was heavy lead shielding to protect against cosmic rays.

During the 200-day flight from Earth to Mars, the astronauts were bombarded by cosmic rays every day. The cosmic rays traveled through all parts of the astronaut's bodies, including their brains. By the time they got into orbit around Mars, they were not the same astronauts.

“I see...uh...uh...what do they call it?...Mars...in the window,” said Matt. “It's pretty.”

“Yeah, it's real big now,” said Todd. “We must have got there. So what do we do now?”

“I think we were supposed to do something,” said Marina. “But I can't remember what it is.”

The three astronauts thought for two minutes, each trying to remember what it was they were supposed to do.

“I remember now!” said Matt. “We're supposed to land the spaceship on Mars.”

“Yes, that's it,” said Todd. “Yes, I do remember they said something about that. At least I think so.”

“Okay, so let's point this big spaceship to that big planet, and get moving,” said Matt. “No use wasting time.”

The ship's trajectory was altered, so that the whole rocket was pointed directly at Mars. Soon the astronauts could see the entire rocketship plunging deep into the Martian atmosphere. Soon an urgent radio message was received from Mission Control on Earth.

“What in blazes is happening?” said the voice from Mission Control. “You were supposed to put the rocket in orbit around Mars, but your whole ship is plunging into the atmosphere!”

“Uh-oh,” said Todd. “Did we forget something?”

“Not that I can recall,” said Matt.

“Um...um..wait a second...let me try to remember,” said Marina. “Oh, I think I remember now. They told us before to put our rocket ship in orbit before we tried to land.”

“Oh, yeah, you're right,” said Matt. “I kind of remember now, at least I think I do. I think they said... we were only supposed to send just the landing craft to the surface, not the whole rocket ship.”

“So let's fix that,” said Todd.

The astronauts looked at the buttons of the rocket ship's main control panel. 

“Um..um..I kind of forgot,” said Todd. “What do all these buttons do?”

“Why if you don't remember, then I certainly don't remember,” said Matt. “Maybe Marina remembers.”

“Oh, I'm sure I can remember,” said Marina. “Just give me a few minutes. I'm sure I can remember what at least one of these buttons does.”

The befuddled brain-damaged astronauts fumbled hopelessly as the ship began to burn up in the atmosphere. The ship crashed into the planet, exploding into a hundred pieces. A new crater on Mars was formed, which was named Fearless after the ship that created it.

Mind As We Do Not Know It

When considering extraterrestrial intelligence, most science fiction tends to think of intelligent beings inhabiting protoplasmic bodies. Those protoplasmic bodies may look very odd, with all kinds of weird appendages and strange facial features. But the basic model of consciousness is not radically different from mind as we know it: a single consciousness inhabiting a single protoplasmic body. But there are many other very different possibilities.

The universe is believed to be about three times the age of our planet. Intelligent life may have evolved on other planets many millions or billions of years before it appeared on our planet. Having had vast eons to develop, intelligence may have evolved into strange forms vastly different from the “single brain in a single body” that we are used to considering. Let us consider some of the possibilities.

Group minds. On some planets, the minds of individual organisms may be united into some kind of group mind or planetary consciousness. Such a group mind could be a permanent linking, as imagined by the Star Trek series, with its depiction of the Borg. Or such a group mind may be only a temporary linking, something to be achieved on only particular occasions. We can imagine a planet in which people are individuals 90% of the time, but become linked into a group mind 10% of the time.

Planetary electronic minds. On some planets, there may be no individual bodies with minds. There may be a single electronic planetary mind. Such a planetary mind may have an army of robots at its command to fulfill its wishes. Such robots may have no consciousness of their own, but may be merely agents of the planetary electronic mind. If you were to connect ten robots to a human mind, the human would not be able to productively do the multitasking needed to operate those ten robots at the same time. But an electronic planetary supermind might have no such problem, and might be able to control thousands or millions of robots at the same time.

Body-switching minds. Once some alien civilization has learned the secrets of consciousness, it may find a way to do things with consciousness we could never dream of. The inhabitants of such a civilization may be able to switch their minds from one body to another, whether robotic or protoplasmic. We can imagine a society where someone might put his body into hibernation for the weekend, and have his mind inhabit a robot body for the same weekend, switching back to his original body at the end of the weekend. Or particular individuals might switch bodies for a particular length of time. Such a switch might be as easy as connecting two individuals to some fancy electronic device that connects with their brains.

Disembodied minds. Since we do not understand the secrets of consciousness, we have no way of knowing whether consciousness is irreducibly dependent on solid matter. It is possible that consciousness can exist when you have only an energy state or a vaporous material state. If so, then highly advanced extraterrestrials may have evolved into a disembodied state. They may have deliberately chosen such an evolution in order to make themselves immortal. Such a possibility was imagined by Arthur C. Clarke in the novel 2001: A Space Odyssey. He imagined a sequence of evolution in which aliens first evolved into robotic bodies and then ages later evolved into a pure energy state to make themselves “beyond the reaches of time.”

Disembodied shape-shifters. In the X Men comic books and movies, a character named Mystique is depicted as a genetic mutant who can shift shape to resemble any human. It is ridiculous to imagine that any genetic mutation would give humans such a power. But if some superadvanced alien race were millions of years older than ours, and had evolved into a disembodied state, the members of such a race might have the ability to temporarily materialize themselves into a tangible form. A disembodied intelligence might be a cloud of atoms or subatomic particles; and if such particles were a conscious mind, such a mind might be able to temporarily reorganize itself into a variety of physical forms. Even if a disembodied intelligence were pure energy, energy can be converted to matter, and matter converted to energy. So if you were a member of a superadvanced race on another planet, you might start your day not by asking yourself “what should I wear today?” but instead “what should I be today?” with the possible answers including a male, a female, some other type of organism, a fish, a plant, a car, or who knows how many other possibilities. Even if your disembodied cloud didn't have all the types of particles you needed, you could probably grab some of the needed particle types from the air, the soil, or miscellaneous objects lying about.

Conscious starships. When we think of interstellar spaceships, we always to tend to think of beings traveling in a spaceship. But many civilizations may have discarded such an idea, in favor of making starships themselves intelligent. When a starship arrives on our planet, the only intelligence in it may be a conscious intelligence housed in the electronics of the starship itself. Such an intelligence may launch robots to explore a planet, and such robots may be merely mobile eyes and ears for the electronic intelligence within the spaceship. Such conscious starships may be more practical for interstellar voyages that might require thousands of years. I offer this idea to any sci-fi novelist who may wish to write an epic novel told in the first person, one entitled I, Starship.

Migrating mind-clouds. If a superadvanced extraterrestrial civilization were to evolve into a disembodied state, it might not be content to hang around its original solar system. Being freed from the needs of food, water, and oxygen, a disembodied mind might launch itself across the interstellar void in search of adventure. Such migrating mind clouds may now be hanging around our planet. One does not rebut such a possibility by saying that there is no evidence that such mind clouds are communicating with us. A disembodied superintelligence may regard us as we regard insects at our feet – something too stupid to be worthy of communication, but merely something to be studied. 

Planetary nebula or migrating mind cloud?

Galactic superminds. Civilizations millions of years older than ours may have discovered some way to achieve instantaneous communication with other civilizations. So rather than just considering the idea of a planetary supermind uniting all the minds on a single planet, we can also consider the possibility of a galactic supermind uniting the minds on a million far-flung planets.  If you were to encounter such a supermind, it might be easy to mistake it for a deity.

NASA's Burn Map Debunks NASA's Explanation of the Australia Mystery Lights

In 2012 NASA released a light map of planet Earth made from observations by an orbiting satellite. The map was made from data acquired over nine days in April 2012 and 13 days in October 2012. Most continents appeared as expected. For example, the map of the United States showed many lights around the east coast, but not much light around the Rocky Mountains.

But the light map had one big surprise: there were many lights shown over the eastern half of western Australia. The eastern half of western Australia has little population. So how could there be all these lights coming from such a sparsely populated area?

Credit: NASA

In 2012 NASA made an attempt to explain this mystery. NASA claimed that the abundant lights in the eastern half of western Australia were caused by wildfires. It is known that the eastern half of western Australia is pretty dry, so this explanation seems to have been accepted without challenge by the press.

There are two huge problems, however, with NASA's explanation. The first is historical. If there had been huge wildfires in the eastern part of western Australia during the time the data for the light map was collected (nine days in April 2012 and 13 days in October 2012), there would be a historical record of such fires. But there seems to be no such historical record.

 This wikipedia article discusses in depth the Australian bushfire season between 2012 and 2013. The article devotes 4 paragraphs to the month of October 2012, and mentions a huge wildfire in eastern Australia (in the Queensland region), one that consumed a million acres. But the only discussion of fires is western Australia is a discussion of a relatively tiny fire that only consumed 2500 acres. Such a fire can account for perhaps only one dot on the map showing “mystery lights” in western Australia. 

As for April 2012 this article discusses the fires between June 2011 and May 2012, but makes no mention of any fires in April 2012. Wildfires mostly occur in Australia between October and February.

I did a Google search for “fires in Western Australia” with the results restricted to between October 1, 2012 and November 1, 2012. I could find no mention of any fires in western Australia during this period, except for a discussion of the relatively small 2500-acre fire previously mentioned. I then did a Google search for “fires in Western Australia” with the results restricted to between April 1, 2012 and May 1, 2012. I could find no mention of any fires in western Australia during this period. Among the sites I found was one called wildfiretoday.com which allowed me to search results by an “Australia” tag. There were many detailed accounts of wild fires in Australia between 2011 and 2015, but none covering fires in western Australia in April 2012 or October 2012 (except for the relatively small fire previously mentioned).

In short, the historical record does not support the claim that there were huge wildfires in western Australia during the two months when the data for the NASA light map was collected. But NASA did provide something in an attempt to back up its claim that the “mystery lights” in western Australia were caused by wildfires. NASA provided a map supposedly showing “burn scars,” and claimed that there was a match between this map and the map of lights in Australia.

But there's a huge problem here. The “burn scar” map and the light map match up fairly well for northern Australia. But the maps miserably fail to match up for the eastern half of western Australia – the very location of the lights that are hard to explain.

The “burn scars” map is show below. I've added a rectangle around the eastern half of western Australia.

Credit: NASA

 

The composite below shows a comparison between the NASA light map and the NASA burn map. The green rectangles show the same part, a large region of the eastern half of western Australia. 

 

Now, according to NASA's claims, the red spots in the rectangle on the top should match the yellow spots in the rectangle on the bottom. But there is no match. Fewer than 10% of the yellow spots in the rectangle on the bottom match the red spots in the rectangle on the top. There are no “burn scars” in 90% of the spots where the lights were observed in the green triangle area.

In short, NASA's own “burn scar” map debunks NASA explanation for the “mystery lights” in western Australia. Evidently the “mystery lights” in western Australia were not mainly caused by wildfires, for the burn scar map shows almost no trace of such wildfires. And as I discussed before, the historical record also indicates that such massive wildfires did not occur during the time that the light map was made (April and October 2012).

NASA's unconvincing attempt to justify its unbelievable explanation for the “mystery lights” in Australia was reported without question by the press. It is as if no one bothered to compare the light map and the “burn scar” map and see how little they match.

We apparently have here an important unresolved mystery. Unexplained lights were observed over a huge part of Australia, and we have no good explanation for them. I can merely note that as someone who regularly photographs unexplained lights in the night sky (as seen here), I do not find this surprising.

 

If Juries Decided Like Today's Skeptics

Nowadays a group of thought warriors wage a constant battle against anything they deem to be something that strays outside the approved circle of mainstream materialist orthodoxy. These thought warriors call themselves skeptics, even though their attitudes are in some ways the opposite of the original thinkers called skeptics (as I'll explain in a moment). The modern day skeptic has a certain modus operandi that includes the following:

Dismissal of “anecdotal” evidence. One favorite tactic of the contemporary skeptic is to dismiss any undesired evidence involving human testimony, on the grounds that it is merely “anecdotal.” The reasoning is that evidence gathered by machines or in laboratories is good evidence, but evidence that comes from human accounts is not good evidence. This reasoning makes no sense, as anecdotal evidence is simply observational evidence provided by humans, and such evidence is a large part of the facts established by science. Scientists such as zoology are largely founded on anecdotal evidence, an accumulation of anecdotes that particular observers saw particular types of animals at particular places. The skeptic likes to point out that errors might arise from human testimony because of the fallibility of human memory. But evidence gathered by modern machines may be just as prone to error, as modern scientific equipment is controlled by extremely complicated software that was programmed by ordinary fallible humans, and such software typically contains bugs. There are actually many ways in which laboratory evidence can go wrong, including software bugs, misuse of equipment, poor experimental design, manual error while taking readings, and faulty summarizing of data points.  

A lazy dismissal of photographic evidence because of the possibility of fraud. Another favorite tactic of the contemporary skeptic is to dismiss any and all photographs appearing to show something that he doesn't wish to believe in, on the grounds that photos can be faked. But dismissing photographic evidence because of the possibility of faking makes no more sense than dismissing all witness testimony on the grounds that witnesses can lie. A reasonable approach is to consider a scale, one side labeled “Pro” and the other side “Con.” Until it is discreditied, each photograph that appears to show some phenomenon must be considered as prima facie evidence for such a phenomenon, and must be considered as something that is resting on the “Pro” side of this scale. 

The more such photographs there are, the stronger the evidence for the phenomenon. Particular photographs might be removed from the “Pro” side of the scale, by analyzing such photographs and proving they were faked (something that might be done by using a site such as fotoforensics.com). Conceivably, if there are incredibly strong valid reasons for disbelieving in something, then something on the “Con” side of the scale might outweigh a body of photographic evidence piled up on the “Pro” side of the scale. But it is just as wrong to lazily dismiss a large body of photographic evidence because of a possibility of fraud as it is to dismiss a large body of witness testimony because of a possibility of lying. If we followed the same principle of “don't count something as evidence if it might have been faked,” we would have to throw out 90% of the evidence that has been gathered by scientists.

Attempts to dismiss or discredit witnesses based on their beliefs or associations. Another favorite tactic of the contemporary skeptic is to attempt to discredit or dismiss witnesses based on what the witnesses believe or what type of associations the witnesses have. This tactic is repeatedly used in an egregious manner by the pages of wikipedia.com, a web site that should never be trusted on any matter relating to the paranormal. An example of this tactic is as follows: David said he saw a UFO, but some other time David indicated he believes in UFO's; so David's testimony cannot be trusted because he's a “UFO believer.” Such twisted logic is very convenient for the skeptic, as it establishes a bizarre protocol in which we cannot accept the testimony of anyone about a phenomenon if the person indicated his observations led him to believe in that phenomenon – so the only testimony allowed about a phenomenon is by witnesses who did not see convincing evidence of the phenomenon. Such reasoning is absurd. Courts have it right: their rule is all witnesses are of equal value regardless of their beliefs. A judge will never allow the testimony of a witness to be excluded on the basic of something like the religion of the witness (and a good judge will never even allow a lawyer to ask a question about the religion of a witness).

A glib tendency to almost always claim that we understand the cause or causes of something mysterious, rather than to admit that such causes are unknown. The universe is teeming with a million mysteries, and what man knows about nature is very tiny compared to what man does not know. But you might get the opposite idea from listening to a contemporary skeptic. Given some baffling observations, such a skeptic will almost always prefer to say, “This is caused by X” or “This is caused by Y” or “This is caused by X or Y” rather than simply say, “We do not understand what causes these observations.” This is an egotistical form of intellectual hubris. Ignorant little fledgling beings like ourselves (in some ways like plankton in the great cosmic ocean) should not claim to understand things that we do not understand.

A tendency to uncritically accept the orthodoxy of a favored authority. In ancient times skeptics were those critical of all authorities. Such skeptics maintained that all human knowledge was subject to doubt, and that no human authority (whether scientific, philosophical, religious, or governmental) could be regarded as a source of certainty. But the contemporary skeptic typically has a very different attitude. The contemporary skeptic seems to be always bowing down prostrate before the authority of scientific academia. Such a skeptic throws away all skepticism when considering the opinions of academics, and seemingly regards their opinions as a kind of sacrosanct holy writ, to be treated as reverently as a papal encyclical. This type of attitude is the exact opposite of the attitude promoted by the original skeptics of ancient times, causing many people to say that contemporary skeptics should be called pseudo-skeptics. The modern skeptic often acts as a kind of orthodoxy enforcer, an agent of punishment for those who deviate from the entrenched dogmas of materialist thought.

Luckily our legal system does not operate according to the principles of contemporary skeptics. But it is interesting to consider: what might happen if a jury were to decide a court case using such principles? Let us imagine a jury deliberating a murder case while following such principles.

Foreman: Well, here we are, ladies and gentlemen. We finally get to decide this murder case after listening to 5 days of testimony. Should we find Sister Mary Agnes guilty of murdering her 98-year-old mother, or should we find her innocent? We must now decide. Let's now try to remember the key parts of the testimony we just heard.

Jane: I remember the testimony that all those nuns gave. Ten nuns testified that on the night the mother of Sister Mary Agnes died in Paris, Sister Mary Agnes was working with them in their convent near Los Angeles, almost 6000 miles away. That sounded pretty convincing, so shouldn't we just vote “not guilty”?

Foreman: No, not at all. You see that testimony was merely “anecdotal” evidence, and anecdotal evidence isn't real evidence, at least not like evidence provided in laboratories. Since the testimony of the ten nuns was just anecdotal, we should just ignore it entirely, and count it as nothing.

John: Okay, so we'll ignore that testimony. But what about the photographs? The defense produced 24 photographs showing that on the night her mother died in Paris, Sister Mary Agnes was in Los Angeles, almost 6000 miles away.

Foreman: But that evidence doesn't count. Those were just photographs, and photographs can be faked.

Jim: Okay, so we'll ignore the 24 photographs. But what about the testimony of the nurse in Paris? She said that she saw the mother of Sister Mary Agnes die, and that nobody killed her.

Foreman: Well we certainly can't accept that testimony. She was a nurse in a Catholic hospital, and you know how those Catholics are. Don't forget, we must always be ready to disqualify a witness whenever that witness holds beliefs that clash with our own preconceptions.

Walter: Okay, so we'll throw out the testimony of the nurse. How do you think we should vote: guilty or not guilty?

Foreman: In this matter we must respect the revered authority of the prosecution. The state has put Sister Mary Agnes on trial, and can we believe that this esteemed authority has got things wrong?

Jane: That would be pretty unlikely. Once you get to be an esteemed authority, you're always right, I would imagine. So it seems we have a reason for voting “guilty.” Is there any other reason?

Foreman: Yes, there is a very strong reason for voting “guilty.” If we vote “guilty” in this matter, the issue is closed, and we don't have to live with some unresolved mystery, that the mother of Sister Mary Agnes died for some unknown reason that we don't know. There is nothing more horrible than a question mark, nothing more abhorrent than a lingering mystery. Rather than making an unsettling statement such as “we don't know why this happened,” we'll be much more comfortable if we say we know exactly why it happened, and say, “She died because her daughter murdered her.”

Bill: So I see how the consensus is developing. So let's see a show of hands: do we all agree to vote guilty?

Foreman: I see twelve hands raised, so the matter is decided. We will tell the court we have voted that Sister Mary Agnes is guilty of the heinous murder of her mother.

Thankfully the case of Sister Mary Agnes is purely imaginary.